Economics, Technology, Futurism

Menu

The Trouble with Rand Paul

Rand Paul just endorsed a man who is deeply hostile to human liberty.

Perhaps that’s Rand’s idea of playing politics? Come to the table, strike a deal, get what you can. Trouble is, it’s tough striking a good deal when the guy on the other side of the table believes that the government should be allowed to claim — without having to produce any evidence whatsoever — that certain people are terrorists, and therefore should be detained indefinitely without any kind of due process.

That’s textbook tyranny.

Yes, I would have [signed the NDAA]. And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda. Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues but you don’t have a right to join a group that has killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail. If I were president I would not abuse this power. But people who join al Qaeda are not entitled to rights of due process under our normal legal code. They are entitled instead to be treated as enemy combatants.

Mitt Romney

Except, if the government had any evidence they were really members of al-Qaeda and engaged in a war against America they could be charged with offenses under current laws and tried in front of a jury of their peers. As was proven when Judge Katherine Forrest struck down the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA as unconstitutional, the real detention targets are people like the ones who brought the case — writers, investigative journalist and whistleblowers: people like Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, and Birgitta Jonsdottir.

I know I will never agree with any politician on every single dimension of every single issue, and that to some extent politics will always involve compromise. Certainly, I disagree with Ron Paul on some issues. But Mitt Romney’s stances on these issues seem much, much, much closer to Barack Obama than they do to Ron Paul. In fact, he might as well have endorsed Obama for President.

And the Ron Paul supporters are noticing: Rand has probably burnt most bridges to his Father’s supporters now. His Facebook page has seen a huge outpouring of fury:

Just lost a lot of faith in a man I otherwise adored.

You suck Rand! Traitor!

That’s why this country is doomed! Even the person you trust is a sell-out. I’m done with politics, people deserve what they get. Let the country run itself to the ground, and still people will not understand what freedom and self-responsibility is about. People want big gov’t, big brother every step of the way. Well, they got it. The rest of us, might as well try to move to another country or find an island and move there.

I knew I’d never vote for Mitt… Now I know I’ll never vote for Rand.

He has fully sold out to the bankers

Endorsing Romney is tantamount to an utter sell-out of conservative principles.

Did George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison try to compromise with King George? Or — when it became obvious that they were facing tyranny — did they stand up for the principles of liberty?

I have always been uncomfortable with the children of politicians becoming politicians. Every anointed child feels like a step away from meritocracy. Dynasties are dangerous, because the dynasty itself comes to be more important than the qualities of the politicians. Who would Rand Paul be if he wasn’t Ron Paul’s son? Just another neocon. Neocons often have a few “unfashionable” libertarian or constitutionalist sympathies; look at Charles Krauthammer. But — unlike Ron Paul — the neocon never has the spine to do much about their libertarian or constitutionalist sympathies. They just ride on the establishment steamroller, into foreign occupations, empire building, corporate welfare, and banking bailouts. Into Iraq, and soon into Iran.

Post navigation

49 thoughts on “The Trouble with Rand Paul”

The OTHER problem with Rand Paul is his budget plan, which promises massive tax cuts for the rich, along with falling deficits, but doesn’t mention the taxes that will rise as a result, or the tax exemptions that will disappear.

The only things that fit the bill are mortgage tax relief, and tax free health care.

Is AZIZ a schizophrenic/dual personality? We’ve read his articulate defenses of U.S. Constitutional principles, Judeo-Christian ethics, etc., all without obfuscation, lying, name-calling and mudslinging — the entirety of current Democratic campaigns (e.g., Wisconsin recall). Now he attacks Romney and Rand Paul using those same tactics!

Was the NDA Act, the judge’s ruling, Romney’s quote, and AZIZ’s paragraph about trying terrorists by a jury of their peers referring to U.S. CITIZENS or foreigners????????
The latter have NO constitutional rights! Treating FOREIGN terrorists as Enemy Combatants goes back at least as far as WW II.

Furthermore, AZIZ forfeits credibility with OWS-style rants about Romney’s (1) “desire to start a war against Iran (and) a trade war with China”, both utterly unproven as to either desire or effect; (2) the elusive optimization of how much to spend (and for what) for defense and how much authority* to give to the Federal Reserve; (3) and “his belief that corporations are people” when — as legal entities, goods and services producers, job creators and taxpayers — they ARE. Ditto for quoting venom from Facebook.

Don, the NDAA applies to American citizens, which is why Romney’s view is wrong. Personally, I don’t believe in indefinitely detaining foreigners without charge, either. Either you have the evidence to suspect them of and charge them with a crime, or you release them. This isn’t WW2.

If you don’t understand the problem with starting a war with Iran and a trade war with China, you really need to read this:

I re-read Zero Hedge (I subscribe). Count me in the club for no trade war with China or anybody else, nor a war with Iran or anybody else. But let’s stop putting words in others’ mouths, including Netanyahu’s, Romney’s, either of the two Dr. Paul’s.

Sounds like Romney needs some of your advice, but my grandchildren need your help in protecting America from Marxism, jihad, racism and the Chicago-way corruption.

Two afterthoughts: (1) Your spelling looks British — are you? All my family are anglophiles, and have visited the UK many times. (2) You should read and recommend occasional FoxNC guest Judge (not the female political hack in Obama’s cabinet) Napolitano — he’s articulately against the Patriot Act.

I would love to talk to Romney. But he’s got a lot of ex-Bush advisers, instead, and as a fiscal hawk I think that those are the last people he needs.

I’m sure he has America’s best interests at heart, but I think he’s going to make some big mistakes if he follows the policies that he himself keeps promoting — namely, attacking Iran, and putting sanctions on China. I know the Pauls (Ron is a personal hero to me) have America’s best interests at heart.

I hope the guys at your Tea Party group take a long look at Gary Johnson, because for me he seems like the most pro-free markets, limited government, low-taxes, pro-civil liberties and freedom guy in the election by a LONG way.

I live in England, though much of my family are American, and I’ve spent a lot of time in California. I consider myself to be Anglo-American.

And yeah — I love Judge Napolitano, and I probably agree with him 90% of the time. Very smart and accurate guy, and I was very sad to see him lose his FOX Business show.

Seriously you think it is ok to detain foreigners without trial because they are suspected Terrorists? If so you are crazy. The American Federal State behaves like a Terrorist often, perhaps the world would be in better shape if they refrained from this.

Yes, Rob, based on overwhelming evidence here and abroad, I seriously think it’s legal and prudent to treat suspected non-citizen terrorists as suspected enemies. You would be more effective in promoting your ideas if you would not resort to name-calling.

I am sorry for saying you are crazy, but to me your position is a crazy one, it was not meant as an insult to you. What is the difference between a foreigner and an American citizen? One is more human than the other because the American government says so? Does the American government represent all Americans without question? Does the collective Will of all Americans as expressed by Washington at any given time override the will of foreigners, meaning you can detain them without trial or invade their countries? You know manifest destiny is just American myth right? You position masquerades as a pragmatic and realistic solution, while ignoring all these questions as if they do not matter, but in the process you are undermining your own freedom and taking steps towards tyranny. You should fear this more than foreign terrorists who are largely pathetic, incompetent and stateless nihilists. It is the nihilists at the head of your government that you should fear because they have the wherewithal to expand their Tyranny.

OK — calling people “crazy” is out, but arguments can be so labeled, or let’s say irrational or irrelevant.

Of your comments, “more human”, “invade their countries” and “manifest destiny” are off the subject and indeed “do not matter” in this discussion; and unanimity of “all Americans”/”collective will” are not relevant to the way Rule of Law works. The U.S. Constitution empowers the federal government to provide for the common defense, subject to the civil rights of its CITIZENS.

I do wholeheartedly agree that expanding tyranny of our government is our principal fear.

I wasn’t excited about Rand’s endorsement of Mitt, but I think he’s still a far cry from a Krauthammer neocon. My sense is (and I’m only speculating) that Rand is on the same page as his dad when it comes to changing the GOP and changing the government and the country. However, he wants to start being effective in making those changes now and not after 30 years of being marginalized and ignored. If this isn’t a complete sell out (and it could be) then I suspect he is playing a little bit of ball to gain more political power within the party… for the purpose of influencing the party towards liberty.
Sure, I blew off some steam in my initial response to the endorsement, but thinking it through with a clear head, I don’t think this is Rand turning into a war-mongering, bail-out loving neocon. Only time will tell, I don’t doubt I could be proven wrong, but I think this is a move to gain influence within the party to start enacting more of his dad’s vision. Dr. Paul might have even encouraged it. One ignites the grassroots and the other infiltrates and influences the leadership. We shall see.

We’ll see, but at the very least if we’re going to see any fruit from this Rand needs me and others to slam him for this to keep him in line. And if Romney has any pro-liberty sympathies he has a whole lot to prove. Called holding your politicians feet to the fire. I am supporting Gary Johnson. If Romney and Rand want my sympathy they’re gonna have to work damn hard to defend the Constitution, civil liberties and the market. One thing I am certain Rand and Romney are for is corporate personhood, which is the most anti-free market device out there, taking personal responsibility out of the market. I judge people by their fruits so if they do some good I will praise them.

What the hell is a “neocon”? I suppose it’s another invention to call names and confuse real (specific) issues. Read Gov. Mitch Daniels on avoiding generalized labels such as “conservative” and “liberal”. I would add left, right, etc.

For me, the definition of neocon is someone who calls themselves conservative while creating a lot of debt, infringing on civil liberties and supporting an interventionist foreign policy. Which today is most conservatives.

I am a Goldwater/Ron Paul/Taft/Eisenhower/Jefferson conservative — old school.

To be fair to Rand Paul, he is not really that big a neocon (he did try to filibuster the Patriot Act), but Romney is a BIG neocon, in my view, creating socialist healthcare in Mass., supporting lots of intervention in the mideast, leaving Mass. with a huge budget deficit.

I wish everyone would campaign (educate and inform voters who are not brain dead or hopelessly brainwashed) on debt, unnecessary wars, socialism, transparency, Constitutional law, etc. and NOT on vague labels vulnerable to corruption and exploitation like conservative, neocon, moderate, liberal, left, right, or even tea party. Our local grass roots volunteer organization dropped “Tea Party” from our name and became “Texas Patriots PAC”, once the Democratic mud-slinging took hold in the party-line media.

To repeat, our TPPAC requires loyalty to only three values: Constitutionally Limited Government, Fiscal Responsibility, and Free Markets. Re another of your posts: our TPPAC, controlled by local volunteer citizens, includes “electability” among criteria for endorsement. Long before the May 29 Texas primary, it was clearly Romney vs. Obama.

I love your list of American icons. I often quote Jefferson, including the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights of which he was the major author, to show the enduring verity of his “eloquent pen”. My wife and I were among the millions of grass roots citizens who took over the Republican Party (legally, but oh so briefly) in 1964. Eisenhower’s 1952 nomination over Taft was, I think, a switch to a sure winner, not to a “moderate”. You left out Reagan, possibly because he compromised occasionally in order to turn around our government and economy*, while ending the Cold War* peacefully. I would be happy to have a Ron Paul presidency.

* Hey — you also should honor your fellow Brit, Margaret Thatcher, who along with Reagan, Solzynitzen (sp.?), Walesa, Havel, et al, was absolutely essential to ending the Soviet Empire. She also saved Britain from ruinous socialism, alas only temporarily.

What the hell is “right” or “left”? Do you propose to communicate without words? Neocon like lefty, socialist etc is a label for political views and it’s pretty well understood one. Sort of pro-market people that in fact are pro-their-friends-in-the-market cronies, belligerent and aggressive in foreign policy and also prefer heavy spending on social programs at home. It is nowhere near conservative, but still “right wing”.

Anyway, Romney is the same kind of establishment candidate as Obama, just from the other side. He’s not really exceptional in anything and his biggest point is being THE candidate of one of 2 parties. He’s got a little color in his personal life that corresponds to party’s ideals (his company that reformed failing firms). Now that he has cleared party level he’s going to be shaped as the new hope to believe in, reformer to save the Nation, pushed up with huge force of entire party machine. It seems that only real vote will be between flavor of indoctrination, as both candidates share most of real policy. Establishment wins, whoever is chosen.

This attitude by Ron Paul supporters, of which I’m one, that we are going to take our ball and go home if we can’t get an ideologically pure candidate is ultimately self-destructive. Had Ron Paul carried the day, we would expect the rest of the Republican Party to fall in line and support him, not because they agree with 100% of his positions, but because that is how the primary process works. Ron Paul put his ideas out there, and unfortunately they did not carry the day with a majority of Republicans.

Our choice now is between Romney and Obama. As bad as Romney is, Obama is surely worse. If you can’t see that, or want to be intellectually lazy and say there is virtually no difference, you are living in fantasy land. If you want to give your vote to Gary Johnson, who I like a lot, you will be working for the reelection of Obama. The country is on the verge of collapse, we don’t have time to indulge ourselves looking for Mr. Perfect.

I worked my ass off, and donated money trying to convince people to vote for Ron Paul. We didn’t win. We’ll have to work even harder in the future. I am convinced that someday soon a Rand Paul or Gary Johnson-type candidate will win.

Rand Paul did not say he agrees with everything Mitt Romney says, he simply said that he endorses him over Obama in the current election. So do I. If Obama gets reelected America as we know it ends. Untethered from reelection Obama will rip this nation apart. I’m voting for Romney, and hoping that he is up to the task. I endorse Mitt Romney.

For the record, Rand Paul spoke out against NDAA and its indefinite detention provisions.

Rand Paul is a friend of mine, and I can assure you that he has not sold out. He is making the only choice he can make for two reasons: 1) the constest is Romney vs. Obama, and 2) if Rand were to win he would then be able to say to the rest of the Republican Party, “I supported your neocon establishment guy, now you guys have to endorse me.” If Rand were to take any other position, we will never be able to get a true liberty conservative elected president. Please think about it.

You know, I wonder if you haven’t been, I won’t say brain washed, but, shall we say, overly influenced by the party line. Joseph Goebbels was a master at using a party line to convince people that a deception was in fact truth:

Joseph Goebbels, perhaps the German best at controlling public opinion, put it this way:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

As I understood this article, which seems to shine the light of truth into a particularly dark corner of deception, it attempts to address the dangers of restricting our freedom in the name of protecting us against terrorism. And that Rand Paul, who has professed to be a principled protector of such rights, turns out to be a person of flexible principles, at best, and a sell out at worst.

You attempts to justify his lack of character follows the old line well he had to do something despicable for a greater purpose rings very hollow when applied to someone who stood on principle to get elected.

Nothing in your remarks seem to address the real problems facing this country.

Did I hear anything from you about holding anyone whom the government deems to be a terrorist without having to show a shread of evidence? This was a central point of the article.

Did I hear anything about a congress that refuses to pass a law that requires disclosing campaign contributions? Did you happen to catch the program on CNN after the last election that showed a lobbyist handing out $5K to all the freshman congressman, out of good will, of course, with no expectations. On the same program, money in envelops was being distributed inside congress while it was in session. Does corruption concern you at all?

Did I hear anything about the widest gap betweent the rich and the poor in U.S. history?
Or about the fact that Romney’s net worth is over $200 million, or that he paid a paltry amount of taxes?

What about the pledge to do something about the FED that Ron Paul was so adamant about before the last election? I haven’t heard about his attempt to dress down the FED for any of its abuses.

Are you concerned that the unelected central bankers, who have positioned themselves beyond the pale of political control, are running the world, creating bubble after bubble, and as each one bursts, they step up to save the global economy like heros, when their only interest is protecting the banks that are members of their cartel?

You seem to have your head so far up the Republican Party’s posterior that you all you can do is repeat platitudes as a substitute for clear thinking.

You know, I don’t want to sound categorical, but, for your own sake, perhaps you should consider therapy, and avoid politics altogether. Sounds like it might be cheaper as well as more character building. Even better, give up these political obsessions and get in touch with The Guy Upstairs, clear your mind and your Heart, and you’ll have something to look forward to when you pass over.

You know those “intellectually lazy” and “fantasy land” remarks cuts both way. You could have simply said “…Rand Paul is a friend of mine, so, anything he says, or does, no matter shallow and characterless it is, is just fine by me.” and saved youself a lot of time, and the rest of us a lot of nausea.

I am concerned about all those things: The Fed, the record gap in wealth, etc. This is why I spent $1000s of my own money and thousands of hours working so hard to support Ron and Rand Paul’s message. Much of the time we spent fighting the establishment side off the Republican Party. The fact is that we didn’t carry the day, we lost. We made significant gains, picking up a lot of delegates, building a national network of donors, persuading people to our side, but in the end we did lose to Romney.

The question before us now is Romney vs. Obama. For me, this is not a hard decision. I vote Romney.

Ron Paul/Rand Paul liberty candidates did win in various places around the country. There are people in the establishment side of the Republican Party who are refusing to back these candidates as they claim they are not “real” Republicans. My argument to them is that we had a primary and our (Rand Paul-type) guy won. Had your establishment candidate won, I would have supported him/her, but they did not.

You see the problem here. We need them to support our guys when we win, and we need to support their guys when they win. “We all hang together, or assuredly we will hang separately.”

I know you are frustrated, so am I; however, saying that you are taking your ball and going home will hurt our cause, the cause we both believe in. If we support their establishment candidate, Romney in this case, then Rand only has to convince 51% of the Republican Party (less in a multi-person race) in 2016 to win the Republican nomination. Under your system Rand would have to convince the entire Republican Party because those he didn’t convince would toss their hands up and simply vote third party or stay home. Under your system, the liberty candidates that did win their primaries (Thomas Massie in the 4th District of Kentucky comes to mind), will be hard-pressed to win their general elections because the establishment side of the party will abandon them in November.

At the convention our delegates are going to push to have as much of our ideas put into the platform as is possible. I don’t expect a whole lot as we got blown out, but I do expect that some liberty ideas will survive, perhaps a full audit of the Fed. If the establishment guys feel our team is abandoning them before we get there we have no hope of any progress. The last 9 months of hard work will have been for nothing.

If you truly believe in the cause of liberty, in the liberty movement, our best strategic move is to support Romney. I hope to hell I was convincing, because we need you brother.

Thank you for listening, and thank you for your support in the primary.

If the Rand-Romney coalition want to support liberty let them prove it through their actions, as (to some extent) Rand has done in the past before he threw a lot of it away by endorsing Romney. Until they prove they can work for liberty, I won’t touch them. If they support liberty, I will thank them. If they don’t I will damn them.

Neither Rand Paul nor his father deserve to be President of this country. I personally consider myself to be fiscally conservative, but neither Ron nor Rand represent me. They represent self-serving ideologues who hide their true agendas by using feel good terms like “liberty” and “revolution”.

They are masters in muddying the issues, claiming that they are unique and are the only ones who can solve our fiscal woes. What are their plans? Destroy key government entities without realizing that the states can’t handle their current load, create a competing currency infrastructure which will make it even harder for our economy to recover and so forth.

Rand Paul’s endorsement of Romney shows that he is not a patriot nor for the supposed ideals of the Tea Party. I suppose that is a good thing because the purpose of the Tea Party wasn’t to reduce taxes (which are already at an all time low), it was to humiliate Obama and make the world think he was not an effective leader by both personal as well as attacks on his policies.

I wish you would realize this, because I think that you do an adequate job of research, it’s analyzing and presenting your findings that messes you up.

The former are all false to one degree or another, illustrated by the utterly unfounded, mean and malicious canard about tea parties. As to your opinions, my observations reveal that the great majority of Americans who are not uninformed, brainwashed or brain dead disagree.

I believe I understand Rand’s action for what it was. He’s being realistic. He’s accepting the truth. The truth has no agenda. He knew many followers wouldn’t understand. He could have added that disclaimer by saying, if he was vilified, it was because they couldn’t handle the truth. Those of you who can’t handle the truth should take a deep breath and think about preparing yourself for the political, and certainly for the economic future of this country. I am. Yes, you and I worked very hard to help Ron elevate his pure and selfless ideas into the realm of serious consideration, but did you really, REALLY, believe he would prevail? No, you didn’t. You hoped and prayed, but, forgive me, you have to accept the voice in the mirror telling you someone else is the fairest in the land. Not doing so will only lead to your emotional destruction. There’s nothing wrong with pressing for accountability, for personal responsibility in our politicians. This is healthy citizenship. You don’t have to donate to the GOP or put holes in your shoes for Mit. You DO have to go to the polls and vote. If you’re still not over the reality of the situation when you enter the voting booth I’ll send you a custom felted clothespin of mine you can put on your nose (these are available for $2 which includes shipping).You may wish to use your own without the felt, to feel the actual pain that may still linger in your heart.

Pretty cool web site here. I think that the video Ron Paul did called NEOCONNED should be on Youtube.com for your information Don. And there is an Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters I just read today on HotAir.com that you can read and think about. My reflex when reading it is like someone who is being spoken to by a persuasive pod person…just fall back asleep, and when you wake up, you will be a Mitt Romney supporter. Not falling asleep.

The one thing every Establishment GOPer or Neo-Con Artist doesn’t get is that the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters were NOT Republicans. We were Independents and Libertarians who were willing to vote Republican because Ron Paul ran as a Republican. So for all of you Romney / GOP lovers out there who are afraid that Paul voters will “split” the Republican vote, take heart…, we won’t. You’ll still have the support of every Republican who was a Republican before Ron Paul ran as a Republican. You just won’t win because you won’t have the added support of the voters Ron Paul would have brought to your Party. Make no mistake, its NOT OUR Party, its YOUR Party and you have only yourself to blame for Obama’s re-election, because you refused to support the only honest politician to come along in your adult lifetimes. Shame on you for voting for the status quo, which will surely be the downfall of this country in just a few short years.

Dr. Rogers: I appreciate all your efforts and sacrifice for the cause of liberty, however I must point out that there is nothing to be gained from working within a completely corrupt system. Rand is not going to get any quid pro quo from these people. They hired thugs to beat up a crippled man in Louisiana. Every primary and caucus was tainted with all manner of manipulation, subterfuge, and deception. The whole nominating process was a farce and a joke. Romney has no real support that I can tell, only party backing and banker bankrolling. The GOP has zero credibility at the national level, as they have stood aside for three years and let crime run rampant in the White House. Fast & Furious? Nothing but wrist slapping. NDAA? Not a problem. All the way down the line. They just seem to be waiting for their shot at the spoils of tyranny. Democrats are proud of their criminality, meanwhile Repubs treat their own party members like garbage if they don’t fall in line.
I’m done with it.

1. Romney is a crook. period. end of story. no argument.
2.) Romney supports fascism. no argument.
3. Romney is a member of the Mormon mafia.
4. Romney has millions in offshore bank accounts made up of laundered money. This is the absolute fact!
5. There is no al Qaeda. period. It is a fictitious name made up by the state department. I repeat: there is no al Qaeda. End of story,. no arguments. Get it?
6. Romney will be as bad or worse than Obomber. I guarantee it. he is a neo con who takes his orders from AIPAC and will do whatever they say. Thus:
7. Mitt WILL start a war with Iran. He has even admitted that he will do so. This proves he is just another zionist stooge.
So go ahead and support this piece of shit. I hope you can sleep at night when after Romney starts his war with Iran and the price of gas climbs to 7$/gallon and you can’t afford to buy a gallon of milk or loaf of bread for your kids or if you say something that falls on the wrong ears and you end up in a black hole, you can get down on your knees and thank Romney for it. So go ahead and prove that you’re all brain dead morons and idiots.
Oh, by the way don’t forget to take your son or daughter down to the recruiters to get them signed up so they can get in on the action in Iran. Won’t that be great?
You Romney supporters are all ignorant assholes!
BTW: I dislike Obomber as much as I dislike Romney.